EU: between Russia and the USA

Today Europe is facing a hard time trying to find a balance between Russia and the USA. It is clear that Europe has lost its top priority place on American foreign policy agenda and Russia can not replace the USA's image of a big reliable boss.
Russia, in its turn, has lost its illusions about the possibility of full integration in to the European structures and reoriented its interests eastward.
Besides, both actors are divided by energy issue which prevents Europe from seeing Russia as totally friendly and positive neighbor with no hidden jokers in his pockets.
The article I link here is a bit old but it didn't lose its relevance and importance.
http://www.eastwest-review.com/article/european-union-deciding-between-russia-and-usa-part-i?page=1

Afghanistan: an apple of discord or a field for co-operation?

Twenty years ago Soviet troops were withdrawn from Afghanistan, and eight year ago NATO forces were deployed there. The state has passed through two occupations against the background of the never-ending civil war, has become the main supplier of heroin to the global market, the symbol of international terrorism, famine and devastation. Soviet administration, planning the expedition, didn’t expect Pashtun guerillamen, equipped with old British rifles – the trophy of Anglo-Afghan wars – to occasion well-trained and armed troops of the USSR a lot of troubles. However in the 80s Afghanistan was foreordained to become the last range territory for the Cold war: with the help of the USA the opposition succeeded in outfighting the great neighbor and gaining independence.

Contemporary advocates of democratic Afghanistan don’t face such challenges. Today's guerillamen are equipped with self-made machine guns, which are made of locally available material in the north of Pakistan, with Russia preserving friendly neutrality. Ample resources are directed to the humanitarian aid, the conduction of free elections and maintenance of security. How come no positive shift has taken place in the past eight years? The famine has not been overcome, the war is still in progress, the drug production is increasing.

The greatest disillusionment of the NATO operation is caused by political and social situation in modern Afghanistan. It is still the poorest country in the world. The large part of the population shifts with less than one dollar a day while the international community spends millions on tackling this problem. Cultivation of opium poppy and production of heroin amount to more that 60 percent of GNP of modern Afghanistan.

That’s about the situation in modern Afghanistan, which is officially controlled by NATO. The country has changed a lot in the course of eight years but the question is if it has become less dangerous for the global community, for Europe and Russia? To what extent the presence of the USA is profitable for Afghanistan?

The USA succeeded in gaining predominance in Central Asia region with the complete approval of the global community. Nineteen new military bases, which are located in the territory of Iraq, Afghanistan and former Soviet republics – Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, were opened after 2001. It gives an opportunity to control from the East and from the West one of the main declared hostiles of the USA – Iran, as well as China, Pakistan and Russia.

American cynicism is not typical for the Europeans. If the promotion of democracy, tackling social problems and the war on terror are just propagandistic clichés for the USA administration, the European treat this terms seriously. They are ready to wage the war on international terror, threatening both the USA and the West European countries, on Islamism radicalization, which can have negative influence on spirit among immigrants, or at least they are ready to struggle for universal democratic ideals. After eight years of occupation there is clash of views of Europe and the USA on the possible policy in Afghanistan. This clash can lead to the split in the coalition.

Public polls in Russia and some European countries show the negative influence of anti-terrorist operation conducted by the USA on the global situation and the necessity of making new decisions on Afghanistan in co-operation with Europe and Russia. Can we expect it in the short-run? I doubt so as Afghanistan issue is again off the top priorities of today's political agendas due to never-ending economic troubles suffered by many countries due to Afghanistan and other useless expenses.

http://www.eastwest-review.com/article/afghanistan-apple-discord-or-field-co-operation

Alexander Rahr: Russia is a part of Europe

Here you will find an interview with Alexander Rahr, a well-known political scientist, the son of Russian emigrant, who has been living in Germany. In 2000 he published a book "The German in the Kremlin" about Vladimir Putin. Today he answers several questions about his vision of Russia and Russia's role in the modern Europe.
http://www.eastwest-review.com/article/interview-famous-political-scientist-director-programs-russia-and-cis-german-society-foreign

The Relations between Turkey and Russia: New Eurasian Alliance?

Russia and Turkey were “Historical enemies” for ages. There were 11 russo-turkish wars, centuries of competition and hostility. This policy resulted in enormous economical and demographic losses and formation of Independent Balkans – zone of instability, hostile to both empires. The last russo-turkish war destroyed Ottoman and Russian Empires. A short period of friendship in 20-30-es of the XX century was profitable for both Soviet Union and Turkey, but it finished with the beginning of the II World war.

Later on the relations were developing still rather poorly. For Russians, Turkey has remained, as before, the primordial contender on the Caucasus and Black sea, the carrier of a hostile culture and alien values, the instrument of American policy and NATO`s sentinel on the southern flank of the weakened Russian empire. For Turks, Russia, as in the old days, has been associated with threat – “the northern bear” – unpredictable, dangerous, and capricious.

At the beginning of the new century the situation changed quickly and dramatically. The russian and turkish business opened numerous projects and tens thousands of Russian tourists chose Turkey the best place to spend summer vacation.

The turning point is observed in political relations as well. The clear Eurasian policy of both states, the far-fetched threat of American intervention and common economic interests pulled Moscow and Ankara together, leveling regional contradictions between them. Turks and Russians relied on cooperation with each other and ousting the USA from the region. Putin’s and Erdogan`s policy makers came to the conclusion that both countries could not cardinally change the regional balance of forces, but together were able to resist American involvement. Vexing questions remain, but they are not causing as much concern as before and are currently viewed in the common context of geopolitical partnership. Ankara is still dissatisfied with the Russian military presence at Georgia and Armenia, and Moscow feels uncomfortable with Georgian-Turkish and Azeri-Turkish military cooperation.

History shows that hidden or neglected problems do not often disappear by themselves, they still have to be solved. Will this Moscow-Ankara based balance of power in the Central Asia last for long?

http://www.eastwest-review.com/article/relations-between-turkey-and-russia-new-eurasian-alliance

Israel facing a new Intifada

After Israeli troops attacked the Peace Convoy in the morning of 31st of May it became obvious that it was the best moment for pressing upon Israel. During the recent years this country has been violating international law too openly: it uses British and Australian passports to carry out acts of terrorism in foreign countries, continues building of settlements in Palestinian territories, and now it has come to actual piracy. Information is to be spread extremely actively now; for example, photos of killed human rights activists or crates with cookies stained with blood. Formally, Israel is right: the blockade was launched long ago, the territories were occupied, and human rights activists were warned about possible responsibility.
A session of the Security Council is to be called for; sanctions, eliminating of the blockade, and launching of humanitarian missions are to be demanded. Pressing can be carried out using massive meetings in front of embassies, boycott of Israeli goods, and departing of Israeli diplomats.
In theory, it is high time for Russia to remember about its own concerns in the Middle East. Russian neutrality allows interfering the situation, condemning Israel, and proposing guarantees of peaceful reconciliation of the conflict. Together with Turkey, Russia is to call for a session of the UN Security Council and to bring this act of state-level terrorism to the highest level of international discussion. It would also allow to improve the authority of the UN, which the president Dmitry Medvedev is talking about so often.
In fact, Russia allows various foreign political powers to manipulate with Russian opinion concerning the current situation. Yevgeny Satanovsky, the president of the pro-Israel Middle East Institute, was the first to comment upon the event from the Russian side in his interview to official broadcasting station “Voice of Russia”. He named the attack righteous and called for an immediate occupation of the Gaza Strip by the Israeli forces. This means that, unlike Turkey, Russia does not have any strategy in the Middle East.
And if Russia stays aside fruitful actions are unlikely to be taken against Israel.
http://www.eastwest-review.com/article/israel-facing-new-intifada

FUTURE OF EUROPE: New security system or new “Berlin walls”?

What should the Europeans be afraid of today? Many still believe that the main threat is coming from Russia and try to install some powder kegs between itself and this potential enemy.
But much more real are threats coming from inside. In the first place — it's the unpredictable and inadequate behavior of the “new democracies” of Eastern Europe; their political climate is very favorable for the emergence of the ultra-nationalist regimes as if they were transferred by a time machine right from the 1930s—1940s. It is them who create the zone of conflicts around the Europe, which threatens the Old World with numerous troubles. The most outrageous example of them is Georgian troops invasion in Southern Ossetia in August of 2008. Only intervention of the Russian army saved the citizens of Ossetian city Tskhinvali from the genocide, which cannot be denied: Georgian tanks were firing directly to the residential houses, schools and hospitals. Recently Dmitry Medvedev made a public statement that if the effective international security institution, capable to stop the aggressor, existed in 2008, Georgia would have never taken the audacity to unleash the war against the people of South Ossetia.
There are yet other potential threats coming from inside - for example, economic crisis that can destroy European architecture so thoroughly built during the last decades.
It is therefore to unify all possible sources to improve the situation. And not the least of the actions needed is adooption of a common European security system.
http://www.win.ru/en/school/2891.phtml

Southern Kuriles: "Islands" card game

Any time when the subject of the disputable for Russia and Japan Kurile Islands is mentioned — no matter while having a mug of beer in a smoked up pub or during the “roundtable” in the shining halls — there are always some know-it-all persons (be it politicians or the average men) who know for sure what to do with these islands. It's same as with a football: few people are actually playing, but millions are, allegedly, know everything about the matter.
There are several wide-spread myths about what Russians should do with the Islands, which are situated so far even from the citizens of the Russian Far East that they are perceived like something abstract and almost unachievable for most of Russian citizens.

The first myth: these islands are four rocks in the middle of the ocean, which no one actually need.

The second myth: Russians may bargain these islands for a while and then profitably sell them to Japan for a huge amount of money, which later can be used to enrich Russians.

The third myth: Russians have to give up the islands, because they are not actually their — they've just allegedly occupied them during the transient war against Japan in August 1945. Note that nobody's talking about the returning of the Southern Sakhalin, which was occupied at the similar time. Perhaps, because Japan doesn't demand it, does it?

Everything is mixed up in these myths: views of the average citizens, plans of politicians, dilettantism of the journalists and even some of the scientists. The idea of selling the islands for a big sum of money can be easily rejected. Nobody in Japan is going to actually buy the islands. They are not willing even to discuss this matter! It is so because the Japanese demand to “return” them their “Northern territories” as they call the Southern Kurile Islands.
Not so bad a solution is to turn the Kuriles into a ecotourist paradise . Probably it could help not only to stop the border quarrels, but also to improve ecological situation in the region.
http://www.win.ru/en/school/2910.phtml

Old wrinkles on the new face of American diplomacy

A curios case, having taken place at the meeting of the heads of foreign policy institutes, held on March, 6 2009, today is usually called symbolic. At that time the American delegation make a present for the Russian party, made in a form of red push-button, which reminded the audience about the “nuclear weapon” push-button and the Cold war confrontation. However, according to the author’s idea, the souvenir should have symbolized the beginning of the new age of US-Russian relations, for this it was planned to engrave the Russian equivalent to the word “reset” (“perezagruzka”). However there was a mistake in translation, and the Russian delegation was offered to “overload” the bilateral relations instead of “reloading” them. Against the background of the events, having taken place the last year, the linguistic error of the American administration seems to be prophetic – the relations of the two countries are really overloaded by the number of fundamental contradictions.
The questions on which the Russian and US politicians unsuccessfully try to reach compromise hardly could be called easily solved - they are too many and too complicated. Minor achievements on minor issues do not mean that overall "reloading" of US-Russia relations is gathering speed. Big unsolved problems like renewing European security system, Russia's accession to WTO, stagnant Russia-NATO dialogue are pulling our bilaterla relations to underworld.
http://www.eastwest-review.com/article/old-wrinkles-new-face-american-diplomacy

The world that changed after 1945

In his book book "Lend Lease: Weapon for Victory" E. Stettinius conceived the following grounds of the after-war world and the peaceful U. S policy in it: "When we were not the United Nations and everyone was by himself, all we had were the misfortunes and defeats. Having become the United Nations, we’ve intercepted the enemy’s initiative and now we are winning. It doesn’t matter, how many months of struggle are ahead — until we’re together the day is undoubtedly ours.

What will we be capable of since we reach this victory — that depends from whether we’d be able to conclude peace the same way we’ve fought against the aggression, remaining to be the United Nations. For the last 30 months, since 11th of March, 1941 we’ve received plenty of evidences that our unity can work the miracles. We’ve avoided the catastrophe, which could’ve postponed the liberation for centuries and we’ve gained a great opportunity to achieve the better future for the humanity. We’d only be able to use this opportunity if we stay united.

One might ask why the matter of the possibility of our future cooperation is being raised at all. If we won thanks to our unity, it would be a terrible mockery if we’d suffer a defeat during the peace time, having failed to keep our unity! Then all our losses, all the sacrifices made by those who lived and fought for the victory, would be really in vain.

But if we’ve learned how to fight back-to-back, we still might learn how to cooperate after the war. Of course we’ll face difficulties, contradictions and conflicts of interests. But there’s really nothing new or incredibly awful in it. Such matters can be solved to the mutual benefit. I think that those Americans who doubt that — and that is very odd in my opinion — do not have the faith in our ability to use our power wisely and for the common good in the international relations.

What are we to be afraid of? Rivalry with the Great Britain? We’ll hope that it would be a fair competition — competition in fight for prosperity of our own and all the other countries. After the victory in this war our country can hardly be afraid of any competition. We would have the tremendous material resources and the industrial power at our disposal as the country that didn’t suffer from the enemy attacks, country whose citizens can make business with people all over the world, country that know a lot about the life of other nations thanks to the millions of our compatriots living abroad. The English fear of competition can be understandable as they’ve suffered heavy economic and military losses. However, Englishmen are great businessmen as well and they would find the strength to restore their economy and we are interested in them to succeed at that. Great economic prospects are opening up before everyone who lives in a free and prospering world.

"Are we afraid of the communism in Russia? Why on earth do we have to be afraid of it? Do we have so little faith in our form of leadership and don’t we understand how much good did the free entrepreneurship, regulated for the sake of democracy, brought to our country? We have been working on our experiment for more than 150 years already — and we will keep walking our way, so the Soviets are free to work at their own experiment. We don’t have a single reason to be afraid of Russia. We’d just benefit from the friendship and the mutually profitable cooperation with it".

Are we afraid of the revival of China? Of course, not. China has been the most peaceful of all the great nations for the last 2000 years. New China can be considered to be the moral leader of the United Nations in the sense of understanding of what should we do for the sake of establishing the international cooperation.

After concluding the peace, Americans would have nothing to be afraid of, except, probably, the lack of faith in themselves and their own country. If we’re ready to continue our wartime cooperation even during the peace time, the rest of the world will be glad to cooperate with us for the sake of the common benefit.

All the United Nations have subscribed to the goals, proclaimed in the Atlantic Charter and the Declaration of the United Nations that can be briefly formulated as the freedom of speech, religious freedom, and freedom from poverty and fear. We cannot reach these goals at once — the path that leads to them is long and thorny, but they are still as much worthy and real as the goals of our Declaration of Independence. We cannot reach the strong and lasting peace without reaching them. History of humanity gives us the evidence that peace and prosperity are incompatible with the tyranny, poverty and fear".
The article I link here goes further and offers possible scenarios of USSR development after the victory in the Second World war.
http://www.win.ru/en/Mysteries-of-History/3331.phtml

Russian Idea and Russia's place in the world

In the recent years Russia has become a partner in multilateral combinations of the international actors, who seek survival and development without losing their independence. It's a kind of realpolitik too, but filled with much more ethics and common sense. But still the independent strugglers for the common future in this diverse and (at the same time) globalized world lack the unification force, lack the powerful mediator. Probably, Russia could be such a force, for it is a country that unified all the major world cultures under one roof and every such culture feels at home; but to play such a part, Russia should become a new social economical reality, and it couldn't be done by the blood of any kind of revolution. We actually have just one option — something like the Soviet Union plus belief in God. And, of course, the realities, that are quite different now, must be taken into consideration.

We lacked such an example in the past in our domestic as well as foreign politics. In that case the number of supporters, ready to help us, risking their own lives, could have been greater, and their quantity could have made quality, a prerequisite for success. And the number of defectors (who always have their personal material egoism underneath their “sublime” ideas, if we look at them a bit closer, and who “were so kind” to bring us knowledge of some valuable Soviet intelligence agents of the past) could have been less.
http://www.win.ru/en/ideas/2867.phtml

Corruption as a Mother of Terror

Corruption is just a particular case of the money obsession that truly became some kind of an "anti-national idea" in Russia. Everyone has heard the furious Patriarch Kirill’s rebuff to the self-seeking cab drivers, who have jacked up the prices for their services and driven the people after the explosions in the metro demanding the crazy rates. However, the cynicism of some of Russian fellow compatriots seems to be boundless. The next day the swindlers started to send the text messages, offering to donate the money that allegedly were to be sent to the victims of the terrorist act. As the saying goes, it can’t become worse than that.

Russian nation was always famous for its ability to unite in the face of the danger in order to jointly protect its Motherland. The very moment for that has just come.
http://www.win.ru/en/ideas/4111.phtml

Yanukovich and the mines of the language issue

During 5 years of Yushchenko being president sociologists used to inform the language issue wasn’t the priority for Ukrainian citizens. But the first week of Viktor Yanukovich in office has proved it wrong – the language issue stays as one of the most painful problems of the country’s social being. On 5th of March, during his first visit to Moscow, Viktor Yanukovich promised he wouldn’t postpone the adoption of statutes aimed to protect the rights of Russian-speaking population in Ukraine. “We’ll adopt all the necessary laws. I promise to the Ukrainian people to implement this program decision. The issue will be settled in the nearest future”, Yanukovich stated at the press-conference in Kremlin answering the question about solving the problem of protection of Russian language in Ukraine.
http://www.eastwest-review.com/article/yanukovich-and-mines-language-issue

“Mistral” – the wind of change

In the opinion of a number of experts, the development of relations between the Russian Federation and France are essential right now, when the US administration, being the most influential institute of global politics, doesn’t pay attention to any of them. This point of view is shared by a French political scientist Fabio Liberti, who claimed in one of his interviews that “this is the omission which Sarkozi wants to use to construct special Franco-Russian relations. These relations may turn into more expand cooperation between Europe and Russia in the sphere of economy and security”. The signing of the agreement between “Gazprom” and “Gaz de France Suez” on the acquisition of 9 percent of “North Flow” shares in return for provision by Russian gas company of additional 1.5 billion cubic metres annually (starting in 2015) turned to be the next achievement. Then Medvedev negotiated that Russia would by 2 war-ships from France and construct two ships in the national ship-yards under corresponding license. The cooperation of the two countries in rocket and space sphere has already become typical: Paris is going to spend nearly 1 billion dollars on purchasing 14 launch systems “Soyuz”.
http://www.eastwest-review.com/article/ldquomistralrdquo-ndash-wind-change

US ABM system in Europe: what comes next?

The threat of American ABM system initiative for military security of the Russian federation is apparent and is put under the question only by the participants of its implementation. The point of view of Russia concerning the issue was expressed by the chief of General Staff of military forces of the Russian Federation Nikolaj Makarov, who, in particular, claimed that “in an extreme case, if Iran places its warhead against a certain state, we now where this warhead will go – it is not Poland or the Czech republic, that’s why the deployment of the facilities in these states make us concerned”. “Regarding imaginary threat from North Korea and Iran, this facility is not capable to reach these countries. We are really concerned that this system is against Russia” – added the chief of General Staff. The concern of Russia is caused also by the involvement of the Baltic states in the process. Such a scenario of the further course of events is not rejected, particularly, by the Russian military expert Vladislav Shurygin: “The USA reconfigures its ABM , turning away from land-based objects. It is easy to destroy them by cruising missiles at the very beginning of military operation. Only land-based tracking stations will be deployed in Romania. Washington places its stake on naval ABM, which can be easily moved from one region to another and in elaboration of which the USA advanced greatly. If the intend to deploy similar elements in the Baltic region or somewhere in the north is the determining factor.
http://www.eastwest-review.com/article/us-abm-system-europe-what-comes-next

Canada-Russia: between thaws and frosts

Fights for the northern latitude became the basis of Canadian foreign policy in the recent years. During the Olympic Games Harper certainly will repeatedly take this theme up in the process of negotiations with the world leaders, who decided to visit the sports holiday. And at the same time he wants to remind once again that Canada plays an important role on the international stage. As opposed to the “Arctic hysteria”, the latter fact is difficult to contest. That’s quite another story that Canadian authorities would spoil long-standing peace-making public image of the country by its warlike anti-Russian statements.

However, “harpers” and “mackays” go to and fro, while Canada remains. It will always be an interesting country with its national foreign policy. The country that is, simultaneously, political rival and political partner of Russia in the Northern hemisphere. Canada is not only our everlasting hockey adversary — this game can not only separate but also bring countries together. This is what the super series of 70s have proved.

http://www.eastwest-review.com/article/canada-ndash-russia-between-thaws-and-frosts

Is cyber war already on?

It is funny that the Russian word “csar” is frequently used in American political lexis. During the last two decades the necessity appeared to appoint a person who would control sophisticated bureaucratic structures in the US administration and report directly to the president. There are csars for emigration, finance, ecology, etc. Richard Clarke was such a “csar” for counterterrorist activity during the presidency of George H. W. Bush, Clinton, and in the first administration of George Bush Jr. He worked for many years in governmental departments, headed counterterrorist activity in the United States National Security Council. In the top of his career Clarke was a member of the president’s cabinet.

Clarke believes that the USA is quite vulnerable facing the threat of the Internet war. He suggests drastic changing of Internet providers system, so that the government could take control in order to protect the country in case of a serious cyber attack. Among his other duties, Clarke was the special advisor to the president on cyber security in 2001, which adds more weight to his predictions. Clarke is sure that the level of the current concealed cyber war is dangerous indeed, that it can turn into a full scale military conflict any time. When asked about his prognosis of the outcome of the war after one of his lectures, he answered that “America may lose the first cyber war”.
http://www.eastwest-review.com/article/cyber-war-already-part-1

Sanctions against Iran: did the USA manage to bring over Russia and China?

During the last several months Russia has truly made a step towards the West in the issue of Iranian nuclear problem, having admitted a possibility of introducing of new sanctions against the Islamic Republic. However, Russia did not agree to everything the USA proposed in order to “reload” or conclude a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. The statements made by Medvedev and Obama after their last negotiations showed that opinions of the parties still differ seriously.

Yuriy Lamin notes that the present situation does not look very advantageous for the USA as China has finally decided to take part in the negotiations. It makes consensus on sanctions almost impossible.
http://www.eastwest-review.com/article/sanctions-against-iran-did-usa-manage-bring-over-russia-and-china

New prospects of Russian-Vietnamese cooperation

The next year is to become a momentous event for cooperation between the Russian Federation and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. The republic will celebrate the 65th anniversary of independence, the 35th anniversary of the country’s union (the two events the USSR was directly involved), as well as the 60th anniversary of Vietnam independence recognition by the USSR and establishing of diplomatic intercourse between the two countries. According to the data of the Vietnamese government, within 60 years specialists form the USSR and Russia have actually created basic industry branches, built about 250 industrial objects; in higher education institutes of Moscow and other Soviet cities more than 52 thousand of the Vietnamese citizens obtained qualification. Now they form political, scientific, cultural, and economic elite of the country. After the collapse of the Soviet Union there was a slight stagnation in cooperation between the two countries. However, it was in this period (1994) that an Agreement concerning the basic principles of relations between Vietnam and Russia was developed and signed. Later, alongside with a later adopted Declaration of strategic partnership between the two countries, it became a solid foundation for further development of bilateral relations...
http://www.eastwest-review.com/article/new-prospects-russian-vietnamese-cooperation

A big game around the pipeline Iran-Pakistan-India

Iran possesses large deposits of natural gas, for today confirmed deposits amount to more than 30 trillion cubic meters – the country holds the second place in the world, following the Russian Federation. For recent years production and consumption of natural gas were growing rapidly in Iran, but this country has very limited export capacity. Most of nearest neighbors of Iran, such as Arabic countries of Persian Gulf, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, have their own substantial supplies of hydrocarbon resources. Iran makes attempts to develop the export of liquefied gas, but for that foreign investments and technologies are needed. But due to USA pressing many large western companies have to refuse to cooperate with Iran or suspend cooperation. As a result, two still “free” ways of transporting gas with the help of pipelines are very important for Iran: to Turkey and through it probably to Europe; and to Pakistan, and through it to India or China. Iran already exports gas to Turkey through existing pipeline, but a new pipeline is needed to expand export to Turkey and Europe. However, in this case a new pipeline is to be built in the most mountainous regions of both Iran and Turkey, because the main deposits of gas are situated in the southern part of the country. Therefore, it is suggested that a pipeline through Pakistan may be more advantageous for Iran, taking into consideration the possibility of entering Indian and Chinese markets, which can provide export of Iranian gas for many decades to come. It is planned to take gas for this pipeline from the world’s largest shelf deposit “South Pars” in Persian Gulf; this deposits amounts to 14.2 trillion cubic meters, and production volume, according to some data, can amount up to 150 billion cubic meters of gas per year.

To read more go to http://www.eastwest-review.com/article/big-game-around-pipeline-iran-pakistan-india

Preventive sensation of the Russian Military Doctrine

On October 14, 2009 the Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation Nikolai Platonovich Patrushev, being interviewed by the "Izvestia" newspaper, speaking about the contest of the new Russian Military Doctrine stated: “When the national security is threatened the preventive nuclear strike can’t be excluded”. The statement provoked wide response both in Russia and abroad. The preventive use of military force always attracts attention even if there are no direct evidence of such intentions.

Why should Russia frighten anybody with the preventive nuclear strike? - asks Russian political analyst Andrey Pavlov. History shows that the preventive strike was chosen when there was extreme growth of menace that was impossible to stop. Hardly the current situation about Russia develops this way. Terrorism and drug trafficking expansion can’t be tackled with the nuclear weapon. The containment of another state aggressive behavior through the demonstration of more expanded aggression is not worth doing. Nevertheless the negative reaction can be predicted at least on the example of France. Thus the Secretary of Russian Security Council meant the right to be the first to use the nuclear weapon but not preventive strikes. He may have spoken about the preventive strike at “aggressor” and not “potential aggressor”. That is the enemy who conducts the intervention and not just intends to do it or plans it. However western experts reacted rapidly and negatively. When the document was exhibited to the public and there was no point regarding the preventive strike, it was considered that this point remained in closed drafts. And though the meaning of restrictive menaces hidden from the potential aggressor is difficult to understand, the opportunity to blame Russia of being aggressive referring to the Russian menace of preventive strikes will be used more than once... For further reading see
http://www.eastwest-review.com/article/preventive-sensation-russian-military-doctrine